A profile of E. O. Wilson in The New York Times, Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans:
Dr. Wilson was not picking a fight when he published "Sociobiology" in 1975, a synthesis of ideas about the evolution of social behavior. He asserted that many human behaviors had a genetic basis, an idea then disputed by many social scientists and by Marxists intent on remaking humanity. Dr. Wilson was amazed at what ensued, which he describes as a long campaign of verbal assault and harassment with a distinctly Marxist flavor led by two Harvard colleagues, Richard C. Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould.
The new fight is one Dr. Wilson has picked. It concerns a central feature of evolution, one with considerable bearing on human social behaviors. The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.
David Sloan Wilson in Evolution for Everyone, and Ullica Segerstale in Defenders of the Truth, both report that E. O. Wilson has always supported group selection. The recent broadside against the primacy of gene selectionism was only prompted by new empirical data from social insects enabled by DNA fingerprinting. Coefficients of relatedness below the threshold hypothesized by W. D. Hamilton confirmed to Wilson his intuitions that more than inclusive fitness was at work, and allowed him to make a renewed push toward an acceptance of multi-level selection in evolutionary theory.
Finally:
Though Dr. Wilson is a fighter when necessary, he is also a conciliator. In his most recent book, "The Creation," he calls for scientists and religious leaders to make common cause in saving the natural life of the planet. He has addressed major meetings of Mormons and Southern Baptists to ask for their help in protecting biodiversity. Of the differences between science and religion, he says: "Stop quibbling -- I'm willing to say 'Under God' and to hold my hand to my heart. That's recognition of how this country evolved, and that we are using strong language to strong purpose, even if we may not agree on how the Earth was created."
A few years ago I recall watching a Christan comedian mocking atheists who object to crosses in classrooms; after all he asked rhetorically why are atheists so terrified of crosses if they don't believe in the power of the symbol in the first place? Of course, this begged the question of how sanguine Christians would be if a crescent, star of David of pentagram were on display in a classroom. They wouldn't be happy about it because they take their beliefs seriously, so similarly they should be less than surprised when unbelievers object to the intrusion of their symbols into the public space.
All that being said, over the years I have started to become less convinced that the atheist position necessitates such a strong adherence to the principle of the naked public square. My reasoning is simple: I do not believe that belief in particular religious systems and atheism are symmetrical in character. That is, atheism is simply a spare assertion about the existence of God, while religions tend to be elaborated and baroque cultural complexes which accrue a great deal of social capital. The naked public square is ultimately something that is more essential for religionists themselves, who may believe that the domination of public space by a God not their own is blasphemy, than it is for atheists who deny that such supernatural entities exist in the first place.
"I do not believe that belief in particular religious systems and atheism are symmetrical in character."
Quite. Or, atheists are more individualistic whereas religious people are more communitarian.
In this sense EO Wilson was a typical individualistic atheist whereas the fellow travellers who demonized and persecuted him (and still do) were of a more 'religious' persuasion - in that they apparently subordinated themselves to the kind of group discipline and conspiring which is typical of (or, at least, recommended to) Communist 'vanguards'.
Wilson seems always to have been truthful as he sees it; his opponents have been truthful according to the needs of the group.
Atheist Wilson's primary allegiance is to science; his 'religious' fellow traveller opponents primary allegiance is to politics.
BTW I would recommend the account of the EO Wilson affair in 'Science as a Process' by David L Hull. (This book being the single best book about science I have ever read.)
I think there are two levels of accommodation of religion in the public square. Let me use the courtroom as an an example. The first level of accommodation allows the judge to ask God to "bless this court," to allow religious oaths, etc. The second level is allowing jurors and witnesses who are nonChristian and atheists to be witnesses and jurors. The latter practice only emerged in the early 20th century, and the practice is still a bit shaky since the oath procedure has not been standardized in all states. I, for one, am not will to say "So help me God" in an oath or affirmation, because this would be a lie -- and thus for me would invalidate the oath. Similarly, I would not say "under God" since this, for me, would invalidate the pledge. However, there are those who want everyone to say these things as a condition of their participation in government events, positions, trials, or services.
I agree about the baroque nature of religion but I would disagree about the importance of having a naked public square. Allowing a specific religion to be imposed on the government has negative outcomes for the general public. It may seem like a minor thing to have a cross in a public square, but that is just a start. The true believers wont stop there. They will continue until we have government policy based on religion, oh wait we already have that!
What a load of red-baiting nonsense. If Gould had simply dismissed Wilson as a fascist, well then Wade & BGC assertions would be symmetrical and fair.
But "distinctly Marxist flavor"? Or accusing Gould of being in a "Communist vanguard"? That's the kind of hysterical right-wing commentary that is right up with the best of Soviet counter-revolutionary pap. Talk about a collectivist mindset!
With friends like these, Wilson has no need of enemies.
But "distinctly Marxist flavor"? Or accusing Gould of being in a "Communist vanguard"? That's the kind of hysterical right-wing commentary that is right up with the best of Soviet counter-revolutionary pap. Talk about a collectivist mindset!
gould admitted marxist influences though he wasn't one (his father was a communist i believe). lewontin WAS and IS an avowed marxist; as evidenced by his co-authorship of works such as the dialectical biologist.
Razib, gould admitted marxist influences though he wasn't one (his father was a communist i believe).
Now that's kinda sad. Of course Gould was on the left -- and everyone right and left have been "Marxist-influenced", as everyone is "fascist influenced", "social democrat" influenced, etc. You'd have to be a moron not to have been "influenced" by all political trends --- whether you agree with them in toto or not, every trend has something to teach.
But to call his disagreement with Wilson "Marxist flavored" is just red-baiting. Gould didn't argue with Wilson's politics -- even though he strongly disagreed with them. He argued with his science. As I said, baiting would be fair if he had baited Wilson on his politics.
The intellectually honest thing is to give Gould the same respect he gave Wilson -- otherwise, we end up playing the old "socialist-" or "Jewish-" or "bourgeois-" science game, instead of looking at the science.
You know as well as I do that Wade's "Marxist-influenced" statement wasn't an analytical statement regarding the applications of "dialectics" --- which is a Hegelian idea --- but a simple slur word, like "Fascist". Argue Gould or Lewontin's science --- but to dismiss them for their politics is exactly the mistake of "harassing" Wilson for his right-wing politics instead of attacking his scientific arguments, whatever his ultimate inspiration.
That kind of commentary really is in the "best" tradition of Stalinistic propaganda. It is particularly sad when folks on the right have learned the wrong lessons from the mistakes of Marxism -- when they display the same kind of vulgar and juvenile collectivist thinking that reduces all intellectual discourse to the question of what "team" you're on.
But to call his disagreement with Wilson "Marxist flavored" is just red-baiting. Gould didn't argue with Wilson's politics -- even though he strongly disagreed with them. He argued with his science. As I said, baiting would be fair if he had baited Wilson on his politics.
actually, THAT'S JUST FUCKING MORONIC. 'The Sociobiology Study Group' was obviously politically motivated in large part. OK? don't make shit up dumbfuck.
and wilson isn't even fucking right-wing jackass, he's a moderate democrat and always has been.
and, I HAVE THE LAST WORD :-)